Case Document 754 Filed 12/17/15 Page 1 of 2 Page D# 21517 FILED DEG LUIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA mam-mm . . . . nemesis.anemia Alexandna BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT (US) LLC, Plaintiff, V. Case No. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC, and COXCOM, LLC, Defendants. Verdict Form We the jury, in the above captioned action, answer the questions submitted to us as follows: Question 1: Direct Infringement: Did BMG prove by a preponderance of the evidence that users of Cox?s intemet service used that service to infringe BMG copyrighted works? Answer: Yes 3 No If you answered yes to Question 1, you should proceed to Questions 2 and 3. Question 2: Contributory Infringement: Did BMG prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Cox is liable for contributory infringement of BMG copyrighted works? Answer: Yes No Please proceed to question 3. 3f Case Document 754 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 2 Page D# 21518 Question 3: Vicarious Liability: Did BMG prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Cox has vicarious liability for infringement of BMG copyrighted works? Answer: Yes No If you answered yes to either question 2 or question 3, you should proceed to Questions 4 and 5. Question 4: Willfulness: Did BMG prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Cox?s conduct was willful? Answer: Yes No Question 5: Damages: What is the total amount of statutory damages that you award to Amount: Please sign and return the verdict form.